Colorado's governor seems a little nuts

DENVER (AP)  Colorado's governor threatened Tuesday to call a special legislative session unless the state Supreme Court reverses its "arrogant" decision to kill a November ballot measure that would ask voters to deny most state services to illegal immigrants.

Gov. Bill Owens, a term-limited Republican, said the court's decision on Monday is an attempt to impose its views on the immigration debate.

"In my opinion, the court's decision was inconsistent, it was inappropriate, and yes, I even believe it was arrogant," Owens said.

The governor asked the court to rehear the case and reverse its decision, but acknowledged there is little chance that will happen. He said he will give the court about two weeks before calling for the special session.

The proposed constitutional amendment would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving welfare and in-state college tuition, supporters say. They have declined to list all the services that would be affected, saying the list would be "almost endless."

The state would continue to provide illegal immigrants federally mandated services such as public education or emergency medical care.

In a 4-2 ruling with one justice abstaining, the court said the measure cannot appear on the Nov. 7 ballot because it violates a constitutional requirement that initiatives address only one subject.

It would take a two-thirds vote in both houses, controlled by Democrats, to get it on the ballot.

The top Democrat in the state Senate, Joan Fitz-Gerald of Golden, said no special session is needed because lawmakers dealt with illegal immigration during this year's regular session, passing laws that crack down on human smuggling and counterfeiting documents.

This is the same guy that passed the No-smoking ban and voted Yes on the Ban for Gay Marriage. He's your typical neo-con. Funny enough I knew his daughter in high school, and one of his sons through a friend's little brother. The guy is a total ass.

He's just using clever Rovian techniques to make the court seem illegitimate and inflame the prejudicies of the supporters of this measure. He's making it seem as if the courts deliberatly practice politics and policy-making rather than interpreting laws already concocted by the numbskulls in the legislature. It's worked in the past - note Bush's great success with this strategy.

He's just using clever Rovian techniques to make the court seem illegitimate and inflame the prejudicies of the supporters of this measure. He's making it seem as if the courts deliberatly practice politics and policy-making rather than interpreting laws already concocted by the numbskulls in the legislature. It's worked in the past - note Bush's great success with this strategy.

Click to expand...

I read an article recently, that questioned whether Rove's tactics and the GOP's focus in general may be backfiring in many ways.

While Rove/GOP focus primarily on the South and "value" voters, the Interior West, which is more of the traditional, libertarian Conservative, is deserting the ship.

Colorado's legislature and most Congressman are Democrats. Montana elected a Democratic governor, and Democrats took control of the state legislature. New Mexico and Wyoming now have Democratic governors, as does Arizona.

Part of this shift has to do with an influx of hispanics into the interior west, which tend to vote Democratic, and will not like this move by the Colorado governor.

While Rove's machinery is effective, it is designed primarily to mobilize churchgoers and rile up social conservatives. Any recalibration will likely take time, as there is a certain momentum already created, and the GOP risks alienating religious voters, who tend to be demanding.

Bear in mind that in 2004, while 60,000 votes in Ohio would've given Kerry the Presidency - fewer than 70,000 votes among Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico would have had the same result.

The reason they're focusing on the (*chuckle, smirk*) "values" voters is the same as the last time: they're the people who show up to vote.

Of course, the anti-Bush sentiment is so strong lately that there may be a lot of liberal-leaning fence-sitters turning out to vote too. So we'll just have to wait to see if there are enough.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Most of us are fairly moderate. We hate everybody. So we don't tend to vote as much as those who've clearly picked a side. And there seems to be more who lean right who have. We don't particularly like Dems, and in the last couple of elections, some even liked the Reps because they thought they'd be tougher on terrorism. But people are just angry enough at them over all of their failings to want to get out there. Hopefully more than were in 2004.

I made it clear that last election I was voting against the neocon agenda more than for any particular Dem or their agenda (or lackthereof), and that hasn't changed. You'd think the Dems would get that. But their idea of moderation is to do nothing, and when they do do something, pander to the right.

There are signs that they may be beginning to get it. The recent "new direction" platform is one. Nancy Pelosi's willingness to remove Jefferson from his committee assignments -- and thereby piss off the Congressional Black Caucus -- in order to make a point about having higher ethics than Republicans, is another.

Of course, I don't yet feel that they are the Dems of old...but it shows that they finally have at least a hint of a clue.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.